Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Dr. Howard S. White
Good question...   Several Answers..     1. The rest of the world can already experiment on HF.. and will do so..whether we change our regs or not...     2.    HF has very different propagation characteristics that necessitate different DV solutions than those on VHF and UHF.     3.  

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Dr. Howard S. White
Rick   I for one do not love the ARRL plan.. but it is an improvement over the existing limitation on baud rates and mixing of data, voice and image...and it is likely the best we are going to be able to get at this time. __Howard S.

[digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread jgorman01
1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our regs are changed. We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations. Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 baud or higher. They all use multiple tone modem

Re: [digitalradio] Re: K3UK Telnet Address

2006-02-04 Thread W4LDE-Ron
Andy, No response at 14:10 UTC Ron W4LDE obrienaj wrote: >Hmm, no connects today. I will reboot the software and also reboot >the router , please test. > >Andy K3UK > >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Bill Aycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Andy- I AM on 23-- I get a "connected" in

[digitalradio] Re: K3UK Telnet Address

2006-02-04 Thread obrienaj
-Thanks Ron, I just reset my router , will see if that makes any difference. Everything else looks to be as it should. Andy K3UK -- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, W4LDE-Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andy, > > No response at 14:10 UTC > > Ron W4LDE > > obrienaj wrote: > > >Hmm, no con

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Arthur J. Lekstutis
Hi, I've been an engineer for a long time, but I'm new to ham radio. Where exactly is this limitation defined by the FCC in the US? What document (and maybe section) defines the limitation of 300 baud regardless of the bandwidth? Also: are you saying that the FCC allows us to transmit multiple

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Michael Keane K1MK
At 09:33 AM 2/4/06, jgorman01 wrote: >1. I don't know why you say US hams cannot experiment on HF unless our >regs are changed. We currently have minimal bandwidth regulations. >Someone is certainly welcome to correct me, but I don't know of any HF >modem that tries to use 2 tones at 300 baud or h

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Mark Miller
Keep in mind there is no regulatory baud rate limit for digital voice or digital SSTV. Any emission designators with a second symbol of 1 or 2, and a third symbol of E or C are considered Phone/Image respectively. There are no baud limits for these emissions. The baud limits are for emission

Re: [digitalradio] Re: K3UK Telnet Address

2006-02-04 Thread Thomas Giella KN4LF
Andy,   As of 12:15 pm EST today I still can't log in to your telnet via my OE6 browser or in MixW v2.16. I have not been able to log on to it since you moved it last month.   73,Thomas F. Giella, KN4LFLakeland, FL, USAGrid Square EL97AW[EMAIL PROTECTED]   KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History:

Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread Dr. Howard S. White
Artie...   You seem to be making my point...   Instead of being an engineer and concentrating on developing DV technology..  (BTW good luck with your experiments)   You first have to be a lawyer and attempt to decipher arcane regulations to see if your experimentation might even be legal..

[digitalradio] computer <=> radio interface

2006-02-04 Thread mr2e0ayd
I have been given a signalink sl-1+ interface with an 8pin cable. I am using a kenwood ts-570 dge. Would i be right in thinking i would get better results from using a 13 pin connector and using the acc-2 connection on the radio. At this moment in time i am using mixw and the hrd radio program

Re: [digitalradio] Re: K3UK Telnet Address

2006-02-04 Thread Bill Aycock
Andy and all G R E A T ! !- it works again- as of 22:30z Saturday. Puzzle- I am on port 23 but the header on the K3UK says something else (4?) Good to see activity here again Bill-W4BSG -- Bill Aycock W4BSG Woodville, Alabama Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Re: [digitalradio] Re: K3UK Telnet Address

2006-02-04 Thread Andrew O'Brien
Port 4 of the 20 ports the software allows. On 2/4/06, Bill Aycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andy and allG R E A T ! !- it works again- as of 22:30z Saturday.Puzzle- I am on port 23 but the header on the K3UK says something else (4?) Good to see activity here againBill-W4BSG--Bill Aycock W4BSGW

[digitalradio] Re: ARRL proposal removes baud rate limitations on HF

2006-02-04 Thread jgorman01
Michael, Thank you for the elucidation. I am certainly no expert in all this! Not uneducated, but not expert and easy to get confused between baud and bit rate when trying to explain it. Your consise explanation is appreciated. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Michael Keane K1M

[digitalradio] paket monitor

2006-02-04 Thread n0ziz
Where can I find the help file fot N3FJP packet monitor. I have it installed and receives OK but will not send DAN 0ZIZ Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http

Re: [digitalradio] Re: K3UK Telnet Address

2006-02-04 Thread jivey
Andy, I get nothing here on port 23 or 599. time 07:00 2/5/06 JoeW4JSI   Age is mind over matterIf you don't mind, it does not matter - Original Message - From: Bill Aycock To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:48 AM Subject: Re: